Are Scientists Sufficiently Ambitious? Season 2.

IF 5.1 Q2 CELL BIOLOGY
Ole H Petersen
{"title":"Are Scientists Sufficiently Ambitious? Season 2.","authors":"Ole H Petersen","doi":"10.1093/function/zqad032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"S © t a he article “Are scientists sufficiently ambitious?” 1 is by far the ost downloaded editorial so far published in Function , and I av e had mor e personal r eactions to this piece than to any other tem presented in the journal. The reactions have overwhelmngl y been positi v e, since most collea gues a gr ee that the pr obems highlighted in the editorial are critically important. Howver, some correspondents have also made the point that it is ot sufficient to identify the pr ob lems. Solutions are needed. ence, I am now revisiting the theme, to pr opose w ays forw ard hat could rectify an increasingly difficult situation. One of the main pr ob lems identified in the original editoial was the current funding system that encourages generaion of more and more data, resulting in biologists “drowning n a sea of data and starving for knowledge.” 2 Because it is more xpensi v e to generate new data than to provide context, modls, and theories and because Uni v ersities incr easingl y ev alute staff on the basis of how much money they bring into the nstitution (overheads are essential for the sustainability of Uniersities), scientists ar e chasing r esear c h gr ants at the expense f most other acti vities. Unfortunatel y, this acti vity has become ncr easingl y time consuming, not least because the pr oba bilty of rejection is high. Many applications are written to ensure hat at least a few are successful. Even for those who mange to secur e funding, grant writing is taking up far too much ime, and for the many who fail, it is of course a waste of time. urthermore, it is not only the applicants who lose v alua b le ime. The elaborate evaluation system, which is deemed necesary to select the “best” proposals, takes a wa y time from many xperienced scientists, who serve as re vie wers and grant panel embers, time that could have been used for primary resear c h ctivities. One of the reasons for the declining success rates for grant pplications is the substantial rise in the number of applicants. his is ultimately due to increasing numbers of PhD students,","PeriodicalId":73119,"journal":{"name":"Function (Oxford, England)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10290528/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Function (Oxford, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/function/zqad032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CELL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

S © t a he article “Are scientists sufficiently ambitious?” 1 is by far the ost downloaded editorial so far published in Function , and I av e had mor e personal r eactions to this piece than to any other tem presented in the journal. The reactions have overwhelmngl y been positi v e, since most collea gues a gr ee that the pr obems highlighted in the editorial are critically important. Howver, some correspondents have also made the point that it is ot sufficient to identify the pr ob lems. Solutions are needed. ence, I am now revisiting the theme, to pr opose w ays forw ard hat could rectify an increasingly difficult situation. One of the main pr ob lems identified in the original editoial was the current funding system that encourages generaion of more and more data, resulting in biologists “drowning n a sea of data and starving for knowledge.” 2 Because it is more xpensi v e to generate new data than to provide context, modls, and theories and because Uni v ersities incr easingl y ev alute staff on the basis of how much money they bring into the nstitution (overheads are essential for the sustainability of Uniersities), scientists ar e chasing r esear c h gr ants at the expense f most other acti vities. Unfortunatel y, this acti vity has become ncr easingl y time consuming, not least because the pr oba bilty of rejection is high. Many applications are written to ensure hat at least a few are successful. Even for those who mange to secur e funding, grant writing is taking up far too much ime, and for the many who fail, it is of course a waste of time. urthermore, it is not only the applicants who lose v alua b le ime. The elaborate evaluation system, which is deemed necesary to select the “best” proposals, takes a wa y time from many xperienced scientists, who serve as re vie wers and grant panel embers, time that could have been used for primary resear c h ctivities. One of the reasons for the declining success rates for grant pplications is the substantial rise in the number of applicants. his is ultimately due to increasing numbers of PhD students,
科学家有足够的野心吗?第2季。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信